The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Campaign Hero

8.14.08 @ 12:01AM

BUT CAN HE WALK THE WALK?
Re: Robert Stacy McCain's All American Maverick:

Memo to Andrew Sullivan: there's a vast gulf between, on the one hand, contrasting McCain, "who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done," etc., with his opponent, "who has not," and, on the other hand, "savag[ing] the opponent as a traitor." Those who are not in the tank for the world's most famous community organizer might interpret Sen. Liebermann's remarks to mean simply that Sen. Obama just hasn't done much, an easily demonstrated contention.

I swear, these Leftists have tender sensibilities. In response to Tom Ridge's remark, "There are red states and blue states, but we need a president who is red, white and blue," can't you imagine the Obamastanis screaming, "There! Did you hear that? He said 'white'!"

Clinging to God and my gun,
-- Stephen Foulard
Houston, Texas

Robert Stacy McCain is too easily swayed and frightened by polls. While John McCain may be slightly behind or even tied with Obama in the polls the good news is Obama isn't doing as well as his Democrat predecessors at this time in the election cycle. Even with all the potentially illegal foreign donations and biased media coverage he just isn't generating the avalanche of support needed to get him elected. Unless he has a major stumble, health crisis, succumbs to a Democrat dirty trick or Democrats can blatantly steal the election John McCain will be president, poll or no poll.

For those who doubt my confidence a little history lesson is in order. In December 1980 TIME magazine wrote, "For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings. In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and Challenger Ronald Reagan was 'too close to call.' A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders. But when the votes were counted, the former California Governor had defeated Carter by a margin of 51% to 41% in the popular vote -- a rout for a U.S. presidential race. In the Electoral College, the Reagan victory was a 10-to-l avalanche that left the President holding only six states and the District of Columbia... At the heart of the controversy is the fact that no published survey detected the Reagan landslide before it actually happened." Gallup's November pre-election poll had immensely unpopular Carter winning with 44% of the vote to senior citizen Reagan's 41%. Even more startling is how unacceptable Ronald Reagan was, considering his later popularity, in pre-election polls -- Poll Finds Reagan-Carter Choice Unsatisfactory to Half of Public. Despite the polls, Ronald Reagan won and the rest is history.

Here are some more golden oldies that should make Robert Stacy McCain and others ready to usher in the messianic age of Obama reconsider "the hope of audacious change:" "Poll Shows Dukakis Leads Bush," "Many Reagan Backers Shift Sides;" "About those polls -- political polls show Michael Dukakis leading George Bush"; "Dukakis takes 17 point lead over George Bush!" even in late July headlines read "Dukakis Lead Widens, According to New Poll."

In 2004 Kerry was a shoo-in to beat George W. Bush -- or so the media would have had the public believe -- CNN regularly had headlines like "Kerry Leads Bush in New Poll"; in Europe Kerry was all the rage Europe backs the challenger; the critical swing voters were all for Kerry too Uncommitted Voters Give Kerry Nod; even in fundraising the Francophile Kerry was dazzling the media and DC elites Kerry Beats Bush, Sets New Records for Any Candidate Ever in a Single Quarter or a Single Month. Sounding all too familiar?

Even Democrat stooge and apologist Dan Rather warns, "A few words about these polls. First and foremost, no matter whom one wants to see in the White House, paying close attention to summer polls is pure folly. Some say to this line of reasoning, 'Sure, but look at Michael Dukakis, for example: He was up 17 points over George H.W. Bush in 1988.' And Dukakis lost â€" so what, precisely, is the point here?" Since 1968 all but 2 Presidents (Southern Democrats Carter and Clinton) have been Republicans so why should we believe 2008 is going to be any different? Had Ford and Bush 41 attacked their opponents sooner they'd have won too. They waited too long to hit the unknown Democrats where it hurts in their "experience" or obvious lack of it. McCain is correctly slamming Obama now and will continue to do so right up until the election. Obama may be so arrogant he can take the American voters for granted, but prayerfully we've not become as stupid as Europeans and will hand Obama the butt whoop'n he richly deserves.

What about party affiliation? What about it -- the GOP is back to Reagan-era levels and the Democrats lost 2% of their support in just the last month. Party affiliation now stands at 31% Republican and 39% Democrat. We've bottomed out and they're on a downward trend thanks to a feisty GOP and a rich, liberal, Democrat elite indifferent or even sympathetic to higher gasoline prices for working Americans. Maybe we should start asking "what happens if the Democrats' numbers continue to plummet?"

Time to accept the inevitable, John McCain, if he continues to campaign aggressively, is going to the 44th President of the United States and Barack Obama is going to be the first black with a Muslim heritage to win the Democrat party nomination for President, the first Democrat not to know how many states there are and how long presidents can serve, the recipient of the most potentially illegal foreign donations in Presidential politics (even more than Bill Clinton and John Kerry) or more accurately still the same old loser he was before this November.
-- Michael Tomlinson
Camp Habbaniyah, Iraq

TRUST NONE
Re: Lawrence Henry's Do They All Do It?:

I read Lawrence Henry's piece this morning and, pondering the observation of the Boston DJ, was caused to wonder if what he is saying is "Trollops being trollops, it's just fine to lower one's self to their level," which strikes me as a variant on the old (and, I thought, discredited) "She was asking for it" excuse. It seems to me that what is revealed in this tomcatting are failures of respect and discipline; beginning with the self and rolling outward.
-- Reid Bogie
Waterbury, Connecticut

Mr. Henry writes about Rielle Hunter, "Rielle Hunter is 43 years old, not particularly attractive, and sprouts all the signs of trouble: She's a New Age goof. She has no particular talent. She worms into the good graces of accomplished men. She would get pregnant, and she did. She would stick like snot on suede, and she'd pry money, which she has done."

I must take issue with this particular passage, as it seems to be filled with all sorts of speculation about Ms. Hunter, and has the tenor of an excuse for Mr. Edwards's (no relation) behavior. Personally, from the pictures I have seen, I find Ms. Hunter to be more attractive than Elizabeth Edwards in her healthier years...but that is simply a matter of opinion that has no bearing on the issue at hand. As for her "worming" her way into the good graces of an accomplished man, getting pregnant and "prying" money from the man, that all sounds a bit harsh to me.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Education, John McCain, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Television, Environment, Books, Law, Military, Iraq, Russia, United Nations, NATO